From How Appealing:
“6th Circuit Takes Lead As Most Reversed Appeals Court”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article that begins, “The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, often categorized as too liberal and out of sync with the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, faces some unusual competition this term for its crown as the most reversed circuit.”
From the LSJ:
LANSING — A federal appeals court
is about to consider a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s ban against racial preferences in public university admissions and government hiring.
Civil rights groups and University of Michigan students, faculty and applicants say the 2006 ballot measure approved by voters is unconstitutional.
Critics say the constitutional amendment has created an unfair process where universities give weight to geographical diversity and legacy status but not racial identity.
Supporters say the law reflects the will of the people.
Arguments will be held Tuesday morning at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. A district judge dismissed a challenge to the law last year.
Here is the opinion in Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc. — Memphis Biofuels v Chickasaw Nation Industries CA6 Opinion
Lower court materials and appellate briefs are here.
The court first concluded that Section 17 corporations do not automatically waive immunity: Continue reading
Here is the State of Michigan’s Sixth Circuit brief in Northville Downs v. Governor — State of Michigan Appellee Brief
The appellant’s brief is here, as are lower court materials.
Here is the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Logan — Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v Ohio DNR.
The lower court had made its primary holding that the Ottawa Tribe’s treaty claims were barred by laches, as in Sherrill and Cayuga. But consistent with an amicus brief filed by NCAI and Michigan tribes, the Court declined to apply laches, instead relying upon an interpretation of the relevant treaties.
Northville Downs’ opening brief before the Sixth Circuit in its challenge to the constitutionality of the Michigan’s Proposal E, barring additional, non-Indian gaming facilities in Michigan absent a state-wide referendum is here — Northville Downs Appellant Brief
In late February, the Eastern District of Michigan (Cohn, J.) rejected a constitutional challenge to Michigan Const. art. IV, section 41, otherwise known as Proposal E, and the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act. Here are the pleadings in Northville Downs v. Granholm.
northville-response-to-motion-to-dismiss [response begins around page 27, the rest is an amended complaint]
Here is yesterday’s Sixth Circuit opinion in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Rising. The briefs are here. A few excerpts, the first detailing the history of the dispute dating back to 1977, and including the State of Michigan’s use of federal funds supposed to go to KBIC to pay what it considers to be back taxes, very, very dirty pool in my opinion, though KBIC could always sign up with the tax agreement if it chose:
In 1977, Michigan and the Community entered into a comprehensive tax agreement governing payment and collection of sales and use taxes for transactions involving the Community or its members. In 1994, the parties began renegotiating this agreement, but failed to reach accord. In 1997, Michigan terminated its tax agreements with the twelve federally recognized tribes in the State, as part of an effort to achieve uniformity in its agreements with the tribes. Although the State has reached agreement with most of the Michigan tribes, it has failed to reach agreement with the Community. In the absence of any such agreement, Michigan has apparently adopted a policy of taxing transactions involving the Community or its members, while permitting them to apply to the Treasury for an exemption or refund on a case-by-case basis. The State claims that the Community has flouted this policy and refused to pay many of its taxes. Not surprisingly, the parties have repeatedly disputed the amount of taxes the Community owes to the State, and each has withheld funds that the other party claims it is owed. Most notably for our purposes, in 2005 the State withheld $ 34,166.31 in federal funds owed to the Community, which the State offset from the back taxes that it maintained the Community owed.
And here the court addresses the justiciability issue:
Well, not exactly. The petitioner is a prisoner, a practioner of something called the “Native American Traditional Ways religion,” but the Sixth Circuit’s opinion is mostly about whether or not the petitioner’s claim should be dismissed for fraud.
An excerpt:
Michael Garrison, Eric Boylan, and Robert Walker appeal from an order dismissing their civil rights complaint. Garrison and four other Michigan prisoners filed a joint pro se action in district court alleging that prison officials had placed unnecessary restrictions on the prisoners’ religious practice in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1-cc-5. The prisoners requested, and were denied, appointed counsel. The district court later discovered that Garrison was filing papers that had been previously signed in blank by his co-plaintiffs. The co-plaintiffs left the signed, blank papers for Garrison to use in conducting the litigation. The district court regarded the use of papers signed in blank as fraud. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and applied various sanctions. Because counsel will only be appointed in a civil case in exceptional circumstances, the district court acted within its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. The district court also acted within its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice due to the improper nature of some of the filings. However, we vacate the dismissal order to the extent that it applies further sanctions because the record does not sufficiently indicate that Garrison and his co-plaintiffs acted in bad faith.
Here are the appellate materials:
And here is our earlier posting on the district court case, along with all of the extensive exhibits, etc.
The case is Memphis Biofuels v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, being appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the Western District of Tennessee. The case involves the assertion by CNI, a Section 17 corporation, that it is entitled to sovereign immunity, and that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this contract claim against it. The lower court granted CNI’s motion to dismiss and Memphis Biofuels has appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Here are the lower court materials:
memphis-biofuels-complaint-and-exhibits
cni-motion-to-dismiss-and-exhibits
memphis-biofuels-response-to-motion-to-dismiss
memphis-biofuels-supplemental-memorandum
Sixth Circuit materials:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.